Search form

Featured Topics

To promote stable, constructive labor-management relations through the resolution and prevention of labor disputes in a manner that gives full effect to the collective-bargaining rights of employees, unions, and agencies.

This case is before the Authority on an exception to an award of
Arbitrator Harold L. Gangnath filed by the Union under section 7122(a)(2) of
the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part
2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency filed an opposition to the
Union's exception.

The Arbitrator denied a grievance claiming that the Agency violated the
parties' collective bargaining agreement by failing to assign the most
qualified candidate to a job vacancy.

We conclude that the Union's exception fails to establish that the
award is deficient under section 7122(a)(2) of the Statute. Accordingly, we
deny the exception.

II. Arbitrator's Award

After denial of its grievance challenging the Agency's decision not to
assign the grievant to a job vacancy, the Union invoked arbitration. The
parties stipulated the following issue before the Arbitrator:

Did the employer violate Article thirteen (13) of the parties[']
contract in awarding the lock operator position at the Wilson Lock to Jerry
Holt, a lock and dam mechanic and, if so, what is the remedy?

Without elaborating, the Arbitrator determined that "[t]he management
rights provisions of the agreement allow the [Agency] to make the decisions
involved in this dispute." Award at 15.(2) Finding that the Agency did not violate the agreement, the
Arbitrator ruled that no remedy was necessary.

III. Positions of the Parties

A. The Union

The Union argues that the award is deficient because it is not based on
Article 13 of the agreement. According to the Union, the Agency should have
assigned the grievant to the position on the basis of merit and fitness but
instead considered all candidates to be equally qualified. As a result, the
Union asserts, the Agency unnecessarily invoked the tie-breaker provision of
Article 13 and assigned the less qualified candidate on the basis of
seniority.

B. The Agency

The Agency argues that the Union has not demonstrated that the award
fails to draw its essence from the agreement. According to the Agency,
Authority case law supports the Arbitrator's interpretation; the Arbitrator's
construction of the agreement is binding; and the Union is merely attempting to
relitigate the case before the Authority.

IV. Analysis and Conclusion

We construe the Union's claim that the award is not based on Article 13
of the agreement as a claim that the award fails to draw its essence from the
agreement. In order to prevail, the Union must establish that the award: (1)
cannot in any rational way be derived from the agreement; or (2) is so
unfounded in reason and fact, and so unconnected with the wording and purpose
of the agreement, as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the
arbitrator; or (3) evidences a manifest disregard for the agreement; or (4)
does not represent a plausible interpretation of the agreement. U.S.
Department of Labor, Washington, D.C. and American Federation of Government
Employees, Local 12, 34 FLRA 757, 761 (1990).

The Union has not demonstrated that the award fails any of these tests.
The Arbitrator ruled, in effect, that Article 2 of the agreement reserves to
the Agency the right to assess the qualifications of candidates seeking
reassignment under Article 13. The Union has provided no argument that this
interpretation disregards the agreement or is irrational, unfounded, or
implausible. Accordingly, the Union has failed to establish that the award
fails to draw its essence from the agreement.

When a vacancy exists and the EMPLOYER is to fill [it], employees who
are in a classification where a surplus of employees exists may be offered a
lateral transfer. . . . If more than one qualified employee makes a request for
lateral reassignment to the same position . . . the EMPLOYER shall make its
selection on the basis of merit and fitness. All other factors being equal,
first consideration will be given to length of . . .
service[.]

Award at 7.

2. The management rights provisions of
the agreement appear in Article 2, which states in pertinent part:

Management officials retain the right . . . to hire, assign . . . and
retain employees . . . to assign work . . . to determine the
personnel by which agency operations shall be conducted . . . [and] to make
selections for appointments from . . . among properly ranked and certified
candidates[.]